Political Thread

[lost in melb.]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-...ount/100510230

Mr Trump filed a request for a preliminary injunction against Twitter on Friday in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

He argued the social media company was "coerced" by members of the US Congress to suspend his account for political reasons.

Twitter and several other social media platforms banned Trump from their services after a mob of his supporters attacked the US Capitol in a deadly riot on January 6.

A terrible idea.

They might need to reinstate if it becomes a serious 2024 candidate, but he'll only break the rules within a week.

[Griffin]

... after a mob of his supporters attacked the US Capitol in a deadly riot on January 6.

[lost in melb.]

Yes, I kind of agree. They weren't tourists though either

[lost in melb.]

Studies supporting Ivermectin are flawed/fake and even retracted

https://www.yahoo.com/news/7-studies...144410881.html

Interesting article about the flaws in the 7 main studies quoted by proponents of Ivermectin to treat/prevent Covid-19.

This article talks about the flawed papers that seem to support Ivermectin (including, a paper being retracted due to fakery), and points to one well-designed randomized controlled trial with preliminary results that do not support ivermectin. Not quoted by this article, there's been other RCTs that have concluded and also do not support the idea that ivermectin can treat or prevent Covid-19.

It's interesting how the studies that say it is helpful are incredibly flawed or just plain fake (see for example the copy-and-paste fake data in one of the tables shown by the above link; also, one of the studies claims that it was done in a hospital whose administrators said it never happened) while the serious studies with sound methodology keep showing no efficacy.

Now that we have effective monoclonal antibody cocktails and we are about to get effective antivirals such as molnupiravir (and two other promising antivirals undergoing phase III) it makes even less sense to try a medication that has performed poorly in randomized controlled trials.

In other words, nail/coffin.

[lost in melb.]

Just to be clear here, it's a case of: “it worked in vitro (Petri dish) but not in vivo”( inside body). Early laboratory studies did hold out some hope but the question was always “Is the therapeutic level too close to the toxic level?".

This is very common. For example, HIV is extremely easy to kill outside the body but you can't get at it so easily inside.